5 ms·

If you take the Second Amendment literally as written, even regulation of personal nuclear weapons is unconstitutional.

by spoonjim 4y ago

barbazoo 4y ago
We all know, the only way to stop a bad guy with a nuclear weapon is with a good guy with a nuclear weapon.
- kbelder 4y ago
  That does seem to be the case.
  - otikik 4y ago
    He said "a good guy".
    - treeman79 4y ago
      The constitution assumes the government will be run by bad people. Hence all the limits it imposed on government.
      - hotpotamus 4y ago
        The founders of the US, among them some authors of that Constitution, would disagree. George Washington said: “Virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government,” and “Human rights can only be assured among a virtuous people.” Benjamin Franklin said: “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.” James Madison stated: “To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea.” Thomas Jefferson wrote, “No government can continue good but under the control of the people; and … their minds are to be informed by education what is right and what wrong; to be encouraged in habits of virtue and to be deterred from those of vice … These are the inculcations necessary to render the people a sure basis for the structure and order of government.” Samuel Adams said: “Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend of the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue.” Patrick Henry stated that: “A vitiated [impure] state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom.” John Adams stated: “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Virtue ennobles individual character and lifts society as a whole. Virtuous principles eschew prejudice and discrimination, confirming that “all men are created equal.” Virtue encompasses characteristics of goodwill, patience, tolerance, kindness, respect, humility, gratitude, courage, honor, industry, honesty, chastity and fidelity. These precepts serve as the cornerstones for both individual happiness and societal governance.
hotpotamus 4y ago
I suppose the real question is how far the current supreme court is willing to go then?
filoleg 4y ago
Sure, but posessing some of the materials needed for producing such a weapon is indeed illegal due to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Here is an article about some tangentially related recent events that mentions it (and explains as well)[0]. Owning a personal nuclear weapon might not be technically illegal. However, producing it and transferring it is illegal. Which, seems to be almost functionally equivalent to being illegal to possess. This is just purely my thoughts on how that hypothetical could play out, but I would be lying if I said I wasn't stupid curious about it myself. 0. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1978/03/19/weapons-grade-uranium-offer-probed-by-fbi/44d65d33-5390-433d-b5b9-b44843a9a80e/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1978/03/19/w...
- shantbefringed 4y ago
- OkayPhysicist 4y ago
  You can't point at a law to contradict a constitutional right, so presumably a "right to bear ICBMs" argument would hinge on the law being an unconstitutional restriction of their 2nd Amendment rights. It would be mildly amusing if the ultimate decision worked out to "you can own nuclear material, but ONLY for the purpose of weaponizing it. No energy allowed!"
- spoonjim 4y ago
  That's a weird logic. So it would be constitutional to outlaw gunpowder?
rufus_foreman 4y ago
When have nuclear weapons ever been considered "arms"? Infantry don't carry nuclear weapons.
- nautilius 4y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_devic...
- glial 4y ago
  I'm not a lawyer, but development of nuclear weapons is called an "arms race".

If you take the Second Amendment literally as written, even regulation of personal nuclear weapons is unconstitutional.

barbazoo 4y ago

We all know, the only way to stop a bad guy with a nuclear weapon is with a good guy with a nuclear weapon.

kbelder 4y ago
That does seem to be the case.
- otikik 4y ago
  He said "a good guy".
  - treeman79 4y ago
    The constitution assumes the government will be run by bad people. Hence all the limits it imposed on government.
    - hotpotamus 4y ago
      The founders of the US, among them some authors of that Constitution, would disagree. George Washington said: “Virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government,” and “Human rights can only be assured among a virtuous people.” Benjamin Franklin said: “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.” James Madison stated: “To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea.” Thomas Jefferson wrote, “No government can continue good but under the control of the people; and … their minds are to be informed by education what is right and what wrong; to be encouraged in habits of virtue and to be deterred from those of vice … These are the inculcations necessary to render the people a sure basis for the structure and order of government.” Samuel Adams said: “Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend of the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue.” Patrick Henry stated that: “A vitiated [impure] state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom.” John Adams stated: “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Virtue ennobles individual character and lifts society as a whole. Virtuous principles eschew prejudice and discrimination, confirming that “all men are created equal.” Virtue encompasses characteristics of goodwill, patience, tolerance, kindness, respect, humility, gratitude, courage, honor, industry, honesty, chastity and fidelity. These precepts serve as the cornerstones for both individual happiness and societal governance.

hotpotamus 4y ago

I suppose the real question is how far the current supreme court is willing to go then?

filoleg 4y ago

Sure, but posessing some of the materials needed for producing such a weapon is indeed illegal due to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Here is an article about some tangentially related recent events that mentions it (and explains as well)[0]. Owning a personal nuclear weapon might not be technically illegal. However, producing it and transferring it is illegal. Which, seems to be almost functionally equivalent to being illegal to possess. This is just purely my thoughts on how that hypothetical could play out, but I would be lying if I said I wasn't stupid curious about it myself. 0. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1978/03/19/weapons-grade-uranium-offer-probed-by-fbi/44d65d33-5390-433d-b5b9-b44843a9a80e/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1978/03/19/w...

shantbefringed 4y ago
OkayPhysicist 4y ago
You can't point at a law to contradict a constitutional right, so presumably a "right to bear ICBMs" argument would hinge on the law being an unconstitutional restriction of their 2nd Amendment rights. It would be mildly amusing if the ultimate decision worked out to "you can own nuclear material, but ONLY for the purpose of weaponizing it. No energy allowed!"
spoonjim 4y ago
That's a weird logic. So it would be constitutional to outlaw gunpowder?

rufus_foreman 4y ago

When have nuclear weapons ever been considered "arms"? Infantry don't carry nuclear weapons.

nautilius 4y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_devic...
glial 4y ago
I'm not a lawyer, but development of nuclear weapons is called an "arms race".